Hypocrite!

If the quality of integrity is absent in the person, how can it be present in his or her ideas?

I boarded a Jerusalem bus and handed a ten-shekel coin to the driver. He weighed it in his palm, and returned it to me with the word, "mezuyaf."

"What?" I asked, confused. I had never heard this Hebrew word before.

"Mezuyaf! Mezuyaf!" he barked at me, as if by increasing his volume I would understand.

A twentysomething Israeli man standing in line behind me decided to expedite matters. "Mezuyaf means that the coin is fake," he translated.

"It's counterfeit?" I asked, abashed. Quickly I rummaged in my purse for another ten-shekel coin and paid my fare. I found a seat; the young Israeli man sat down across the aisle from me.

I asked him if he had a ten-shekel coin. I wanted to compare it to my counterfeit coin, which looked perfectly good to me. He did. I examined both coins carefully and could see no difference. The young man held one in each hand and announced, "The fake one is slightly lighter."

Never having owned counterfeit money before, I was amazed. The ten-shekel coin is made of two different metals, one encircling the other. "How did they do such a good counterfeiting job?" I wondered.

"It's not so hard," the young man answered. "A few months ago the police found someone in Talpiot [a Jerusalem neighborhood] who was printing fake 100 shekel bills." Then, looking pointedly at my kerchief, which identified me as religious, he added: "And the guy was religious."

"No, but he was dati [religious]," the man insisted, not getting my drift. "He wore a kippah, and he dressed in religious garb."

"If you saw a man with a kippah eating shrimp, would you call him 'religious'?" I asked rhetorically. "Obviously not. A religious person by definition obeys the laws of the Torah. Well, just as the Torah prohibits eating shrimp, it prohibits stealing, which includes counterfeiting money. A person who steals may wear a kippah, but he's not religious."

The Israeli fellow thought about this. Then he broke into a smile of recognition. "I get it. He's mezuyaf."

SECULAR HYPOCRICY

Some Jews give as a reason for not becoming observant that they know a "religious" Jew who cheats in business, or mistreats her children, or acts meanly to his neighbor. They are correct to expect those who claim to be religious to behave with honesty, kindness, and integrity. God expects the same. But I wonder why no one ever rejected Socialism because Karl Marx was a mean and abusive person who exploited the only worker he knew, nor Existentialism because Sartre was an egotistical, promiscuous male chauvinist.

People will adulate -- and imitate -- writers, philosophers, political theorists, and college professors without subjecting their behavior to any moral scrutiny whatsoever.

Of course, one may protest that, unlike religion, whose very basis is morality, one doesn't have to be a moral human being for his political or scientific ideas to be true. Such was the contention of Bertrand Russell, for example.

The story is told of Russell that while he was a Professor of Ethics at Harvard he was carrying on an adulterous affair. Since it was decades before the sexual revolution, Harvard's Board of Governors called Russell in and censured him. Russell maintained that his private affairs had nothing to do with the performance of his professional duties.

"But you are a Professor of Ethics!" one of the Board members remonstrated.

"I was a Professor of Geometry at Cambridge," Russell rejoined, "but the Board of Governors never asked me why I was not a triangle."

A basic fallacy underlies Russell's position. If the quality of integrity is absent in the person, how can it be present in his or her ideas?

Ideas shape our lives. How can we not scrutinize the lives of those who shape our ideas?

The claim that one's ideas are not contaminated by one's moral failures, especially for those who seek to remold society by their ideas, is hazardous. Ideas -- whether they are religious, sociological, political, or scientific -- must come from a source who is, minimally, committed to truth more than the propagation of his own ideology. If a man lies to his wife, how can you trust his philosophical contentions? If a woman fudges on her income tax, how can you be sure that she is not fudging on the results of her sociological experiments, or picking and choosing the results which corroborate her theories?

Ideas shape our lives. How can we not scrutinize the lives of those who shape our ideas?

Ironically, while the term "hypocrite" is usually hurled at those who claim to be religious, some of the greatest hypocrites of modern times were the progenitors of the most anti-religious movements. In this essay we will focus on Karl Marx, whose ideas literally changed the world, and Lillian Hellman, who was the goddess of the New Left.

Both Marx and Hellman were born Jewish, and both of them had a profound effect on the Jewish population of the last century.

MARX

The ideology of Communism swept the Russian Jewish world. The first Politburo immediately after the Russian Revolution had a Jewish majority. Within a decade, these Jewish Communists brutally destroyed all practice of Judaism in Russia. Jewish Socialists in America and Israel also actively fought against Jewish religious practices. America's Workmen's Circle held their annual banquet on Yom Kippur.

All these Communists and Socialists were loyal followers of Marx, who had branded religion, "the opiate of the masses." How worthy was Marx himself to command such an army of believers?

Marx based his whole economic theory on the plight of the proletariat. Yet he himself was a middle-class intellectual who disdained the working class and sequestered himself for decades inside the British Library in lieu of direct observation of the conditions he railed against. According to historian Paul Johnson, "So far as we know Marx never set foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life." 1

Marx claimed that his economic theories were "scientific." In his time, no less than today, the claim "scientific" was the greatest endorsement possible. After all, what reasonable person could argue with the objective findings of science?

Marx's distortion of the scientific method was to search through thousands of volumes in the British Library, picking and choosing those statistics, sometimes long outdated, which bolstered his already-formed theories. Again to quote Johnson: "The problem, as it appeared to Marx, was to find the right kind of facts: the facts that fitted... He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it." 2

Karl Jaspers makes the same point: "[Marx's] whole approach is one of vindication, not investigation, but it is a vindication of something proclaimed as the perfect truth with the conviction not of the scientist but of the believer." 3

Marx not only omitted facts which ran counter to his theories, but also was guilty of distorting, falsifying, and misquoting information which contradicted his contentions. The most glaring case occurred in his Inaugural Address to the International Working Men's Association, in September, 1864. Marx quoted W.E. Gladstone's budget speech of the previous year, in which Gladstone in fact lauded the increase in Britain's national wealth because it benefited all classes of British society. Marx misquoted Gladstone as saying, "This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes of property."

Marx's flagrant misquotation was pointed out to him, but he repeated it in his magnum opus Das Kapital.

Marx's worst hypocrisy lay in the sphere of his character and values.

Marx's worst hypocrisy lay in the sphere of his character and values. Over the last century, millions of young Jews in Europe and America have rallied around Socialism and Communism as the system of ultimate compassion. After all, Marxism's chief concern was with the plight of the poor, dispossessed working people. Jews have perceived it as a modern-day version of the Biblical Prophets, a clarion call to share wealth with society's unfortunates.

But Marx himself was contemptuous of simple, uneducated, working class people. In many personal interactions with them, he displayed a vicious temper, heaping abuse on men who did not have the verbal skills to defend themselves. Often given to outbursts of violent anger against any Communist who disagreed with him, Marx had a habit of saying, "I will annihilate you."4

Marx is perhaps the most chilling example of how the moral failings of an ideologue corrupt his ideas and all the movements and institutions which issue from his ideas. Marx's whole goal was to save the proletariat, but the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and China, founded on his principles, wantonly murdered tens of millions of peasants and workers. It is as if the irascibility and violence of Marx himself insinuated itself into the embryo of Communism; as the organism grew, so did its bent for dogmatism and violence. Stalin and Mao were able to actualize Marx's vain threats; they annihilated millions.

Nowhere was Marx's hypocrisy more evident than in his personal life. The champion of the working class knew well only one working class person: Helen Demuth, the maid who worked for his family. Marx, who railed against the exploitation of the workers, exploited his only worker both financially and sexually. In the forty-five years Helen worked for the Marx family, he never paid her a penny. She received only room and board, which for several years was as meager for her as for Marx's unfortunate wife and children.

In 1849-50, while the family plus servant were living in a two-room flat, Marx started an intimate relationship with Helen and got her pregnant. He refused to admit that the child, a son named Freddy, was his, and had him put out as a foster child. As Freddy grew up, he was permitted to visit his mother in the Marx's kitchen, but was forbidden to use the front door. The man who claimed compassion for millions of oppressed workers never spoke a word to his own working class son.

LILLIAN HELLMAN

As a college student in the late sixties, I, like half the student body at Brandeis, was a political activist of the New Left. Our pantheon included Lillian Hellman, Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman. All of our idols were Jews who had rejected Judaism in favor of a movement which was regarded as more progressive, universal, compassionate, and liberal.

I particularly idolized Lillian Hellman. She was the writer I wanted to be: politically savvy, totally dedicated to her ideals, and action-oriented. In the 1977 movie Julia, based on her autobiography Pentimento, Hellman was portrayed by Jane Fonda. I was inflamed by the character of Hellman: typing away furiously in her cottage by the sea, risking her life to travel to Nazi-occupied Austria to help her friend Julia, a society girl who lost her leg working for the anti-Nazi underground.

Hellman's autobiography was nothing but self-aggrandizing lies.

Only in 1984, did the truth emerge: Hellman's autobiography was nothing but self-aggrandizing lies. A woman similar to Julia indeed existed, but Hellman had never once met her, let alone conspired with her.

Revelations about Hellman's mendacity were compounded by disclosures about her avarice. This champion of the poor and downtrodden had amassed a fortune of some $4,000,000, much of it through legal trickery and contentious law suits against those who could not afford what Johnson calls "the posse of lawyers" which Hellman kept at her beck and call.

Behind her veneer of public compassion for humanity, Hellman had a private record of scorn and abuse toward individual human beings. As Johnson records: "She would spit in a man's face, scream abuse, smash him on the head with her handbag. At Martha's Vineyard the fury with which she assailed those who crossed her garden to the beach was awesome." 5

HOLOGRAMS

Of course, human beings are fallible, and for all but the best of us there is a considerable gap between our ideals and our performance. The difference, however, between a fallible human being and a hypocrite is the humble admission, "I blew it."

The difference between a fallible human being and a hypocrite is the humble admission, "I blew it."

Ideologues are wont to publicize their ideas while hiding their deeds. They tend to insist that their ideas be judged in a behavioral vacuum. In fact, all human beings are holograms. Just as the complete hologram of a human figure is present in every part of the hologram, every particle of the fingernail or earlobe, so too who a human being is pervades all that she thinks, says, or does. A mean person cannot originate a humane philosophy; a mendacious person cannot teach ultimate Truth.

This is precisely why Torah is such an all-encompassing system of behavior. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah obligate Jews in every single aspect of life: in business relationships as well as sexual relationships; in what one eats as well as what one says; in how one must treat one's God, spouse, children, upstairs neighbor, enemy, client, and the mechanic who fixes one's car.

What has often been criticized as the Torah's picayune approach stems from the recognition that it is in the fine details of living that one's character is developed and tested. What one says on the telephone is more important than what one says from the podium. Rigorous honesty in handling money is more important than promulgating grandiose economic theories. Helping your neighbor who is struggling with her bags of groceries is more important than espousing social platforms.

Because Torah is a comprehensive system of behavior, "Torah giants" are distinguished not only by their intellect, but by their actions -- all their actions. The following story is typical of those who devote their lives to practicing Torah: When America's leading 20th century sage, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, died, a black cleaning woman from the hospital where he had been treated appeared at the funeral. When asked why she had come, she replied, "Every day the old Rabbi would inquire how I was and what was going on with me. And he would listen with sincere interest. He was the only patient in the hospital who ever paid so much attention to me."

Sara Yoheved Rigler’s all-encompassing online marriage program, “Choose Connection: How to Revive and Rejuvenate Your Marriage” is available to Aish.com readers at a special price. Click here for more info: http://www.jewishworkshops.com/webinars/connection/

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Sara Yoheved Rigler is a popular international lecturer on subjects of Jewish spirituality. She has given lectures and workshops in Israel, England, France, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, Chile, Panama, and over 35 American cities. She is one of the most popular authors on Aish.com, world’s biggest Judaism website, and is a columnist for Ami Magazine. Sara Yoheved Rigler is the author of five best-sellers: Holy Woman; Lights from Jerusalem; Battle Plans: How to Fight the Yetzer Hara (with Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller); G-d Winked; and Heavenprints . She gives a weekly Marriage Webinar for Jewish Workshops on a spiritual approach to marriage, with hundreds of members throughout the world. She lives in the Old City of Jerusalem. Her newest book, Emunah with Love and Chicken Soup, the story of Henny Machlis, the Brooklyn-born girl who became a Jerusalem legend, was was released in November, 2016. Her website is: sararigler.com.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 28

(28)
Mike Hicks,
February 26, 2013 6:20 PM

Russell's hypocracy?

Enjoyed the article! Minor point: I don't think the example shows that Russell was a hypocrite. He'd written an book on sexual morality, Marriage and Morals, in which he argued that marriages should be temporary and marital infidelity, though wrong when accompanied by lying, wasn't wrong on its own. And his father encouraged his mother to have an affair despite loving her very much, because he thought it would make her happier. So although Russell lived before the sexual revolution his moral views were explicitly in line with it.
I think we do have a reason to doubt the doctrines of folks who don't practice them. But whether or not we like what Russell preached, it's also what he practiced.

(27)
Preston,
December 11, 2008 1:36 AM

did i miss something?

what about other scientific innovators? From the paradigm you are suggesting should we now examine the life of scientific innovators and reject their breakthroughs if we find malfeasance in their personal lives? This is a proverbial slippery slope. I try very hard to live a moral and just life but either im not grasping your thesis or it is inherently flawed.

(26)
Gary Selikow,
May 18, 2003 12:00 AM

Bolshevism

Many people say that Communism is good in theory.
Even where this so, surely any human being with an ounce of decency or compassion would
Realize that the human cost of the Communist experiment has been far too great with over a million people liquidated, and countless lives ruined. With nations and cultures destroyed, and misery and cruelty beyond human imaginings being done as part of the Marxist-Leninist project.
Surely they would realize that the human cost has been to great and that it is time to scrap the Communist project.
There is some merit to argue for a more sharing economy.
In many ways I prefer a social market economy like that of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany and 1960’s Israel to the laissez faire US style capitalism.

But the ideas of Marx where twisted by his own bitter mind, and any good ideas he may have taken from the earlier socialist thinkers, where twisted by Marx’s own bitterness and cynicism, and the abomination of his call for violent revolution.
Marx was clearly not a good person , and his ideas tainted.

The genocidal psychopath, Lenin, spawned one of the cruelest movements in history.
The Bolsheviks committed genocide and cruelly on a scale never put in practice before, and where indeed all bloodthirsty devils.
Bolshevism spread throughout the world, with unspeakable consequences, and still continues today.
Nobody who condones or ignore this can be seen as a descent human being

(25)
chaim reich,
April 4, 2002 12:00 AM

encore!

I impatiently await the opportunity to read any literary output by this woman

(24)
Tony Holcomb,
March 28, 2002 12:00 AM

Who wants to follow a failure?

I loved the article "Hypocrite". The reason most true followers are called hypocrites from time to time is no one wants to be like a failure. Even though human falicies creep in from time to time, there has to be evident some level of success present though it is not openly recognized. Whether a believer in G-D or not no one wants to be like a mean drunk in a bar now do they?

(23)
Anonymous,
March 27, 2002 12:00 AM

I've Never had any Use for Marx

What a great article! As a "moderate" (I dislike these political terms but will use them for want of something better) I have always stayed away from ultra-leftie (and rightist) idealogues for a reason, namely their blatent disregard of facts. Never let the truth get in the way of your theory!
But I would like to point out that Marx did not grow up with Judaism. His parents converted and became Lutherens when he was around six, if I recall correctly, perhaps even younger. The man who would go on to write terrible screeds against Jews, the Money was our true god & such, never exactly lived the life. And that I cannot respect.

(22)
Phillip Kruse,
March 24, 2002 12:00 AM

Yes, but......

Absolutely right, except for one unfortunate, though no doubt unintended, problem. Why on earth would you suggest that "...these Jewish Communists brutally destroyed all practice of Judaism in Russia."? Were there no non-Jewish Communists? The deceived, the anti-Semite and the ignorant could easily point to this section of your article and say "See? Even this Jewish source exposes the Jewish conspiracy aspects of the Russian Revolution!" Clearly, this is not what you are saying. But emphasising the irrelevant fact of Jewish involvement in Bolshevism could have what the mikitary might call "unintended consequences" - it could give aid and comfort to those who wish the Jewish people ill. But the other 99% of the article - fantastic!
Phil Kruse, Australia.

(21)
Anonymous,
March 24, 2002 12:00 AM

Imperfection

I have read the many comments in response to this article, especially the
comment of about our prophets being morally perfect. This in connection with
the whole tone of this article is very "off the mark" The whole point is
that
our prophets were imperfect and despite their imperfections they were still
connect to Hashem and had the perception to understand and make into action
Hashem's will. Even the most imperfect of us can still implement Hashem's
will. Marx was...imperfect, but I believe that because of Marx many concepts
of Torah reality were introduced into China which transformed their culture.
Hashem works in very odd ways, sometimes the route is not direct

All world religions have those with pure hearts who are truly trying to follow the truths they know in their hearts to be what "God" represents. And there are those of EVERY religion who follow their selfish desires for what they believe to be the good of themselves, more money, recognition, violence, etc. Never enough and never any peace. True believers in God should recognize they most likely follow the religious precepts they were "born" into as do the other "true believers" of different religions. I try NOT to judge a religion by their Hypocrates - they are everywhere in every religion.

Appreciate the Honesty.

(19)
Anonymous,
March 20, 2002 12:00 AM

Bravo

I wish I had written that!

Proverbs 16:32
Better is a man of forbearance than a warrior, one who is master over his spirit than the conqueror of a city.

Oh that all our actions would line up with the word of G-d!

Only the things of G-d will last.
Thank G-d we are not where we were.

Sarah

(18)
Barry Blitstein,
March 20, 2002 12:00 AM

Article puts Marx in his place

This is a fantastic article. Finally I found a peice of writing that confirms what I've always suspected of those who promulgate grandiose ideologies. My alma matr, York University, is loaded with communist professors of political science. They should know how imperfect their prophet really was. All the prophets of the Jews were morally perfect or close to it. That explains why Judaism is still valid.

(17)
William Kurry,
March 19, 2002 12:00 AM

Brava!

A poignant essay about ethics, morality
and their relation to the Torah's tachings..

this is very well written and thoughtful. It raises some very good points. Thank you.

(12)
Steven Lukens,
March 18, 2002 12:00 AM

Excellent article stressing the importance of integrity inside and out

I thought this was an excellent article,strssing the immportance of living what one espouses.

(11)
Anonymous,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

A marvelous article.Thank you.

What is wonderful about the study of history,it exposes the countless hypocrites who led millions to their deaths. We must try to learn from the past.

(10)
Benzion Chinn,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Marx actually turned down an offer by Engles to tour a factory.

(9)
Anonymous,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

A Must Read!

MArvelous does not do this article justice. IT is so fundamental and well constructed that I am sending it out to dozens of people. Thank you again for this incredible essay.

(8)
Anonymous,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Ms. Levinsky Rigler does it again!

I have to say that the more I read Ms. Rigler's articles, the more I become aware of the depth of her insight and knowledge. This particular article addressed an issue I believe that many university students encounter and have difficulty approaching, as I know I did in an Israeli university that quoted Edward Said with respect!

(7)
RiMi Berger,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Wow!!!!

Wow! This article was amazing! I never heard this topic put so well!

Thank You.

(6)
Leo Rain,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

very thought provoking

Makes me think of moral relativism and political correctness. But where is the line between foibles and character flaws that influence people's work?

(5)
Anonymous,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Amazing!

Wonderful article- It's about time someone wrote the truth.

(4)
Anonymous,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Passover

"Get the Sale. What ever it takes!" This is the mantra of any agenda driven group or individual. Unfortunately, for some, "What ever it takes", means selling one's moral soul by enslaving others. Bitter herbs...Bitter herbs. Why are they commanded during passover, if not for this very reason, to remind all that freedom comes at a cost, the cost of having to remember the bitterness of the enslaving nature of vices, power, and self-agrandizement.

(3)
Robert H. Grundner,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Hypocricy Abounds

I fear that this flaw exists in us all. Until we self examine, and do so with a critical/honest eye, it is all too easy to judge others and leads one into complacency at best. Smug self assuredness at worst.
R. Grundner
Lincoln, Rhode Island USA

(2)
Harold Glass,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Sara: I had the great honour priviledge of joining you and your family on an erev Shabbos some three years ago when I was in Jerusalem. The kindness and depth which you demonstrated in your home is matched by the kindness and depth of the articles which I have the pleasure of reading. This article was particularly meaningful to me, as it is a subject that I have been thinking a great deal about. Thank you for your insights and thoughts. Shalom, Harold

(1)
Hazel Crowley,
March 17, 2002 12:00 AM

Interesting Article

A lot of people live with "situation ethics"...if it feels good at the time then it must be right. Thank you

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!